• Vincent Richomme (16/16) Aug 29 2008 Hi,
• superdan (5/26) Aug 29 2008 this is rich. no pun intended. i've seen my share of pearls on the usene...
• Vincent Richomme (22/34) Aug 30 2008 he's not contributing any code bug reports or even posts.
• superdan (4/39) Aug 30 2008 simple guideline. dunno, dun talk. same applies to knowledge of stl eh.
• Denis Koroskin (11/27) Aug 29 2008 It's a problem, people see and understand, but there is nothing else we ...
• Christopher Wright (3/24) Aug 29 2008 See, understand, and agree. But people sitting around and agreeing
• BCS (4/30) Aug 29 2008 We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is...
• Walter Bright (2/4) Aug 29 2008 You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.
• Nick Sabalausky (7/11) Aug 30 2008 Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows). No...
• Christopher Wright (3/15) Aug 30 2008 LLVM is written in a tasteful subset of C++. That's how its writers put
• Chris R. Miller (3/20) Aug 30 2008 Objective-C?
• Brad Roberts (11/24) Aug 30 2008 Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all. The
• Bill Baxter (4/8) Aug 30 2008 You're talking Linux, right? On Linux it is supposedly not so
• Brad Roberts (5/15) Aug 31 2008 Yes, on linux. However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
• Bill Baxter (3/16) Aug 31 2008 Could be. I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.
• Mosfet (5/22) Sep 01 2008 It's not that difficult because I managed to do it and I am not an
• Bill Baxter (3/34) Sep 01 2008 Which toolchain did you use? Linux, Cygwin, or MinGW?
• Mosfet (2/31) Sep 01 2008 cygwin and linux

Vincent Richomme <forumer smartmobili.com> writes:

Hi,

I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can see 
  so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the first 
implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you 
just take in account current issues.
If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :

'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are some 
limitations to the package concept..

Why don't developpers focus on this ?

I know that it's important to discuss theory but won't it be better to 
provide something consistent ?

And when you discuss like this, it seems that nothing happens in terms 
of development. For instance GDC compiler doesn't evolve quickly...
I don't see any changes in DMD compiler either.

superdan <super dan.org> writes:

Vincent Richomme Wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can see 
   so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
 The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the first 
 implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
 It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you 
 just take in account current issues.
 If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :
 
 'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are some 
 limitations to the package concept..
 
 Why don't developpers focus on this ?
 
 I know that it's important to discuss theory but won't it be better to 
 provide something consistent ?
 
 And when you discuss like this, it seems that nothing happens in terms 
 of development. For instance GDC compiler doesn't evolve quickly...
 I don't see any changes in DMD compiler either.

this is rich. no pun intended. i've seen my share of pearls on the usenet. but
this one deserves to be framed and hanged by my desk.

so we have monsieur leech here. he's not contributing any code bug reports or
even posts. his grand total of posts is six. but in fairness they include this
chef d'oeuvre. but mind you he is watching! guess we gotta be grateful for
that. so grateful that we should change preference on the subjects we choose to
discuss. we now have to chat about packages and stuff whether or not we know or
care about'em. then make proposals. then have walt implement them pronto. that
way monsieur leech can continue enjoying using the language and reading the
newsgroup. of course posting on the subject of packages would be too much
effort for monsieur leech. he'd rather just watch.

but wait, monsieur leech has even more good advice. he don't see any changes in
the dmd compiler. sorry walt. your best ain't good enuff for monsieur leech.
guess the monthly releases, wads of bugfixes with each of'em and the
neckbreaking evolution of d2 don't count.

now if you'll excuse me. i have to prepare a post on the subpackage access
subject.

Vincent Richomme <forumer smartmobili.com> writes:

superdan a écrit :
 Vincent Richomme Wrote:
 
 this is rich. no pun intended. i've seen my share of pearls on the usenet. but
this one deserves to be framed and hanged by my desk.
 

he's not contributing any code bug reports or even posts.
My contribution : a D compiler for Windows CE/Pocket PC
http://www.smartmobili.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=41

his grand total of posts is six.
Now it's 7


but in fairness they include this chef d'oeuvre. but mind you he is 
watching!
guess we gotta be grateful for that.
so grateful that we should change preference on the subjects we choose 
to discuss.
we now have to chat about packages and stuff whether or not we know or 
care about'em.
then make proposals. then have walt implement them pronto.
that way monsieur leech can continue enjoying using the language and 
reading the newsgroup.
of course posting on the subject of packages would be too much effort 
for monsieur leech.
he'd rather just watch.
 
 but wait, monsieur leech has even more good advice. 
 he don't see any changes in the dmd compiler. sorry walt. 
 your best ain't good enuff for monsieur leech. 
 guess the monthly releases, 
 wads of bugfixes with each of'em and the neckbreaking evolution of d2 don't
count.

Sorry but actually I am watching GDC compiler and I don't know enough 
about dmd.

 
 now if you'll excuse me. i have to prepare a post on the subpackage access
subject.

Please don't lose your time with monsieur leech ;-)

superdan <super dan.org> writes:

Vincent Richomme Wrote:

 superdan a écrit :
 Vincent Richomme Wrote:
 
 this is rich. no pun intended. i've seen my share of pearls on the usenet. but
this one deserves to be framed and hanged by my desk.
 

 he's not contributing any code bug reports or even posts.
 My contribution : a D compiler for Windows CE/Pocket PC
 http://www.smartmobili.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=41

now yer talkin'. i could even understand it tho mon francais est pire.

 his grand total of posts is six.
 Now it's 7
 
 
 but in fairness they include this chef d'oeuvre. but mind you he is 
 watching!
 guess we gotta be grateful for that.
 so grateful that we should change preference on the subjects we choose 
 to discuss.
 we now have to chat about packages and stuff whether or not we know or 
 care about'em.
 then make proposals. then have walt implement them pronto.
 that way monsieur leech can continue enjoying using the language and 
 reading the newsgroup.
 of course posting on the subject of packages would be too much effort 
 for monsieur leech.
 he'd rather just watch.
 
 but wait, monsieur leech has even more good advice. 
 he don't see any changes in the dmd compiler. sorry walt. 
 your best ain't good enuff for monsieur leech. 
 guess the monthly releases, 
 wads of bugfixes with each of'em and the neckbreaking evolution of d2 don't
count.

 Sorry but actually I am watching GDC compiler and I don't know enough 
 about dmd.

simple guideline. dunno, dun talk. same applies to knowledge of stl eh.

 now if you'll excuse me. i have to prepare a post on the subpackage access
subject.

 Please don't lose your time with monsieur leech ;-)

glad we got each other's point. thanks for writin'.

"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:49:50 +0400, Vincent Richomme  
<forumer smartmobili.com> wrote:

 Hi,

 I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can see  
   so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
 The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the first  
 implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
 It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you  
 just take in account current issues.
 If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :

 'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are some  
 limitations to the package concept..

 Why don't developpers focus on this ?

It's a problem, people see and understand, but there is nothing else we  
can do.

 I know that it's important to discuss theory but won't it be better to  
 provide something consistent ?

One of the reason holywars are so popular because everyone has its own  
"religion", he is comfortable with it and sure that he is absolutely  
right. There is a large place for debate. :)

 And when you discuss like this, it seems that nothing happens in terms  
 of development. For instance GDC compiler doesn't evolve quickly...
 I don't see any changes in DMD compiler either.

These are mostly single-person projects and it looks like people are  
somewhat unwanted there.
OTOH, llvmdc is having great progress in development, more open and more  
promising.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Denis Koroskin wrote:
 On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:49:50 +0400, Vincent Richomme 
 <forumer smartmobili.com> wrote:
 
 Hi,

 I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can 
 see   so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
 The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the first 
 implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
 It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you 
 just take in account current issues.
 If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :

 'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are some 
 limitations to the package concept..

 Why don't developpers focus on this ?

 
 It's a problem, people see and understand, but there is nothing else we 
 can do.

See, understand, and agree. But people sitting around and agreeing 
doesn't take as much space as people sitting around and arguing.

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Christopher,

 Denis Koroskin wrote:
 
 On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:49:50 +0400, Vincent Richomme
 <forumer smartmobili.com> wrote:
 
 Hi,
 
 I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can
 see   so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
 The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the
 first
 implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
 It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you
 just take in account current issues.
 If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :
 'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are
 some limitations to the package concept..
 
 Why don't developpers focus on this ?
 

 It's a problem, people see and understand, but there is nothing else
 we can do.
 

 See, understand, and agree. But people sitting around and agreeing
 doesn't take as much space as people sitting around and arguing.
 

We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is 
to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

<g>

Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is 
 to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:

"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:g9a7eg$1k9b$3 digitalmars.com...
 BCS wrote:
 We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is 
 to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

 You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows). Not 
that I'm disagreeing with you, though. FWIW, a D compiler written in a 
better language (like D!) would be great for trying things out, but I 
suppose that's just stating the obvious ;)  (BTW, What is LLVM written in? 
C++, I assume? Haven't really had a chance to look into it yet.) 

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:g9a7eg$1k9b$3 digitalmars.com...
 BCS wrote:
 We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is 
 to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

 You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

 
 Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows). Not 
 that I'm disagreeing with you, though. FWIW, a D compiler written in a 
 better language (like D!) would be great for trying things out, but I 
 suppose that's just stating the obvious ;)  (BTW, What is LLVM written in? 
 C++, I assume? Haven't really had a chance to look into it yet.) 

LLVM is written in a tasteful subset of C++. That's how its writers put 
it, at least.

"Chris R. Miller" <lordSaurontheGreat gmail.com> writes:

Christopher Wright wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:g9a7eg$1k9b$3 digitalmars.com...
 BCS wrote:
 We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have
 left is to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

 You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

 Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows).
 Not that I'm disagreeing with you, though. FWIW, a D compiler written
 in a better language (like D!) would be great for trying things out,
 but I suppose that's just stating the obvious ;)  (BTW, What is LLVM
 written in? C++, I assume? Haven't really had a chance to look into it=


 yet.)=20

=20
 LLVM is written in a tasteful subset of C++. That's how its writers put=

 it, at least.

Objective-C?

;-)

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
 news:g9a7eg$1k9b$3 digitalmars.com...
 BCS wrote:
 We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is 
 to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

 You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

 
 Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows). Not 
 that I'm disagreeing with you, though. FWIW, a D compiler written in a 
 better language (like D!) would be great for trying things out, but I 
 suppose that's just stating the obvious ;)  (BTW, What is LLVM written in? 
 C++, I assume? Haven't really had a chance to look into it yet.) 
 

Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all.  The
instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
being introduced to d).  From there, for the vast majority of any
changes, you wouldn't even have to look at the gcc or gcc -> dmd glue
code.  You could look exclusively at the dmd frontend.

Really, it's inertia that keeps more people from playing with the
compiler than the actually difficulty of compiling it.

Later,
Brad

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:
 Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all.  The
 instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
 it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
 being introduced to d).

You're talking Linux, right?  On Linux it is supposedly not so
difficult.  But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.

--bb

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:
 Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all.  The
 instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
 it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
 being introduced to d).

 
 You're talking Linux, right?  On Linux it is supposedly not so
 difficult.  But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.
 
 --bb

Yes, on linux.  However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

Later,
Brad

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:
 Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all.  The
 instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
 it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
 being introduced to d).

 You're talking Linux, right?  On Linux it is supposedly not so
 difficult.  But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.

 --bb

 Yes, on linux.  However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
 easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

Could be.  I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.

--bb

Mosfet <mosfet anonymous.org> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> wrote:
 Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all.  The
 instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
 it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
 being introduced to d).

 You're talking Linux, right?  On Linux it is supposedly not so
 difficult.  But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.

 --bb

 Yes, on linux.  However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
 easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

 
 Could be.  I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.
 
 --bb

It's not that difficult because I managed to do it and I am not an 
expert at all in compilation toolchain.
The question about GDC is more about who is working on it, it seems that 
only one developer is contributing (Mr Friedmann) and how it progress.

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Mosfet <mosfet anonymous.org> wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com>
 wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com>
 wrote:
 Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all.  The
 instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I
 tried
 it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
 being introduced to d).

 You're talking Linux, right?  On Linux it is supposedly not so
 difficult.  But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.

 --bb

 Yes, on linux.  However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
 easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

 Could be.  I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.

 --bb

 It's not that difficult because I managed to do it and I am not an expert at
 all in compilation toolchain.
 The question about GDC is more about who is working on it, it seems that
 only one developer is contributing (Mr Friedmann) and how it progress.

Which toolchain did you use?  Linux, Cygwin, or MinGW?

--bb

Mosfet <mosfet anonymous.org> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Mosfet <mosfet anonymous.org> wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com>
 wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com>
 wrote:
 Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all.  The
 instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I
 tried
 it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
 being introduced to d).

 You're talking Linux, right?  On Linux it is supposedly not so
 difficult.  But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.

 --bb

 Yes, on linux.  However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
 easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

 Could be.  I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.

 --bb

 It's not that difficult because I managed to do it and I am not an expert at
 all in compilation toolchain.
 The question about GDC is more about who is working on it, it seems that
 only one developer is contributing (Mr Friedmann) and how it progress.

 
 Which toolchain did you use?  Linux, Cygwin, or MinGW?
 
 --bb

cygwin and linux